I have some ideas about "Everything is not ready for design first", and I also talk about XP and cmme.

When I spent the weekend with my girlfriend, I was so silenced. In fact, my brain was not in silence. Before I saw "Everything is not ready for design first", I had the urge to say something, but I could never say anything, after a weekend of thinking, I finally come to the conclusion.
The situation described by birdshover is quite common. From the number of posts, we can see that it is actually a classic scenario of XP. The essence of XP is to embrace change, but to be honest, for the level of many teams in China, blind XP is actually a great gamble. It is really abnormal when it is not in change. I don't want to refute the opinion of birdshover, but I feel that the hierarchy stays at the developer stage to think about this issue. Here, birdshover refers to improving the abstract level, A lot of components were designed in the early stage, and the building was pieced together after the business process was determined. However, there are two problems here. The first is the issue of abstract layers. A high level of abstraction will increase the complexity of the system. A flexible enough component must be a very complex component, this kind of component design and implementation complexity may exceed the complexity of the system itself. For example, ibaties.net is used for convenience in the project, but the change may be great, entity class and configuration file are often modified, so I wrote an ibaties.net dedicated configuration management tool for this project for the sake of flexibility. As a result, the project took a month, it takes half the time to write this tool. I don't know if Brother birdshover feels this way. I guess I can tell you if I am wrong.
Of course there is no silver bullet in the project, so I cannot find a better solution, so I am hiding it for the time being. Here we talk about XP and cmme. In the past, birdshover thought of the XP method. Many people like to put XP and cmme together. In fact, I think it is inappropriate. XP's scope and cmme are much smaller than each other. XP only focuses on development, however, CMMS focuses on the entire project lifecycle, so they are not comparable. However, CMMS is not synonymous with rigidity. It can adapt to changes flexibly in the same way as small-step incremental iteration, however, management is too profound. Sometimes it doesn't rely on theory to completely solve the problem. Any advanced theory has encountered the Chinese national condition, so let's talk about it. Just stop it and pull it to work.